Specifically, the present document aims to provide
practical applications regarding such presentations as they flow from the more
general principles of the Guidelines and of sections III and IV of the Notes
concerning the "Jewish Roots of Christianity" and the portrayal of
"Jews in the New Testament." These principles (sec. A, below)
lead to both negative and positive criteria (sec. B) for the evaluation of the
many ways in which the Christian community throughout the world seeks, with
commendable and pious intent, to remind itself of the universal significance and
eternal spiritual challenge of the Savior's death and resurrection. A final
section (C) acknowledges the many difficulties facing those attempting to
dramatize the gospel narratives. It is hoped that this section will be helpful
in providing perspectives on the many complex questions that can arise.

It has been noted by scholars that dramatizations
of the passion were among the very last of the forms of "miracle" or
"morality" plays to be developed in the Middle Ages. This hesitancy on
the part of our ancestors in the faith can today only be regarded as most
seemly, for the Church's primary reflection on the meaning of Jesus' death and
resurrection takes place during Holy Week, as the high point of the liturgical
cycle, and touches upon the most sacred and central mysteries of the faith.

It is all the more important, then, that extra
liturgical depictions of the sacred mysteries conform to the highest possible
standards of biblical interpretation and theological sensitivity. What is true
of Catholic teaching in general is even more crucial with regard to depiction's
of Jesus' passion. In the words of Pope John Paul II as cited at the beginning
of the Notes: "We should aim, in this field, that Catholic teaching
at its different levels . . . presents Jews and Judaism, not only in an honest
and objective manner, free from prejudices and without any offenses, but also
with full awareness of the heritage common [to Jews and Christians]."

Therefore, any presentations that explicitly or
implicitly seek to shift responsibility from human sin onto this or that
historical group, such as the Jews, can only be said to obscure a core gospel
truth. It has rightly been said that "correctly viewed, the disappearance
of the charge of collective guilt of Jews pertains as much to the purity of the
Catholic faith as it does to the defense of Judaism" (Statement of
the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, November 20, 1975).

In this guilt are involved all those who fall
frequently into sin; for, as our sins consigned Christ the Lord to the death
of the cross, most certainly those who wallow in sin and iniquity crucify to
themselves again the Son of God. . . . This guilt seems more enormous in
us than in the Jews since, if they had known it, they would never have
crucified the Lord of glory; while we, on the contrary, professing to know
him, yet denying him by our actions, seem in some sort to lay violent hands on
him (Catechism of the Council of Trent).

3. The central creeds of the Church focus
precisely on this theological message, without reference to the extremely
complex historical question of reconstructing what various individuals might
have done or not done. Only Pilate is mentioned, as the person with sole legal
responsibility for the case: "He was also crucified for us, suffered under
Pontius Pilate and was buried" (Nicene Creed). This fact gives a certain
hermeneutic guidance for the use of various materials from the gospel passion
narratives in a dramatic context (cf. sec. C, below).

4. In the development and evaluation of
passion performances, then, the central criterion for judgment must be what the Guidelines
called "an overriding preoccupation to bring out explicitly the meaning
of the [gospel] text while taking scriptural studies into account" (II,
emphasis added). Anything less than this "overriding
preoccupation" to avoid caricaturing the Jewish people, which history has
all too frequently shown us, will result almost inevitably in a violation of the
basic hermeneutic principle of the Council in this regard: "the Jews should
not be presented as rejected or accursed by God as if this followed from Sacred
Scripture" (Nostra Aetate).

5. The 1985 Notes also provide a
model for the positive understanding of the relationship between the Church and
the Jewish people that should form a key element of the vision underlying
presentations of the passion. As the Notes state: "The question is
not merely to uproot from among the faithful the remains of anti-Semitism still
to be found here and there, but much rather to arouse in them, through
educational work, an exact knowledge of the wholly unique 'bond' (Nostra
Aetate, 4) which joins us as a Church to the Jews and to Judaism" (I,
8; cf. II, 10-11).

B. Avoiding Caricatures and False
Oppositions

1. Any depiction of the death of Jesus will,
to a greater or lesser extent, mix theological perspectives with historical
reconstructions of the event based with greater or lesser fidelity on the four
gospel accounts and what is known from extra biblical records.

The nature of such mixtures leaves the widest
possible latitude for artistic creativity and insight, but also for abuses and
prejudices. What the Notes state in their conclusion regarding
Christian-Jewish relations generally is equally, and perhaps especially, true of
the history of the development of passion plays in their various forms:
"There is evident, in particular, a painful ignorance of the history and
traditions of Judaism, of which only negative aspects and often caricature seem
to form part of the stock ideas of many Christians."

Emotions and hopes (both practical and spiritual) ran high, and rhetoric often
higher. Thus, along the lines of great issues of the day, and reacting to the
pressure of Roman occupation, there moved a variety of groups, each with its own
wide range of internal diversity: Sadducees, Zealots, apocalypticists, Pharisees
(of varying dispositions, especially the two major schools of Hillel and Shammai),
Herodians, Hellenists, scribes, sages, and miracle workers of all sorts.
Scripture was understood variously: literally, mystically, allegorically, and
through mediating principles of interpretation.

Jesus and his teachings can only be understood within this fluctuating mixture
of Jewish trends and movements. In point of fact, various groups and leaders of
Jesus' time (perhaps especially certain Pharisees) would have espoused many of
Jesus' ideas, such as the nearness of the kingdom of God, resurrection of the
body, opposition to the policies of the Temple, and so forth. The gospels
reflect only some of this diversity. Succeeding generations of Christians,
perhaps misconstruing the theological thrust of St. John's use of the term Ioudaioi
("the Jews" or "Judeans"), tended to flatten it into a
monolithic, usually negative stereotype. Thus, caricature came to form the basis
of the pejorative "stock ideas" rejected so forcefully by the Notes.
Presentations of the passion, on the contrary, should strive to present the
diversity of Jewish communities in Jesus' time, enabling viewers to understand
that many of Jesus' major concerns (e.g., critique of Temple policies) would
have been shared by other Jews of his time.

a) Jesus must not be depicted as opposed to the
Law (Torah). In fact, as the Notes describe in greater detail,
"there is no doubt that he wished to submit himself to the law (Gal 4:4)
. . . extolled respect for it (Mt 5:17-20), and invited obedience to it (Mt
8:4) (cf. Notes III, 21, 22). Jesus should be portrayed clearly
as a pious, observant Jew of his time (Notes III, 20 and 28).

b) The Old Testament and the Jewish tradition
founded on it must not be set against the New Testament in such a way that the
former seems to constitute a religion of only justice, fear, and legalism with
no appeal to the love of God and neighbor (Dt 6:5; Lv 19:18; Mt
22:34-40; cf. Guidelines III).

d) Jews should not be portrayed as avaricious
(e.g., in Temple money-changer scenes); blood thirsty (e.g., in certain
depiction's of Jesus' appearances before the Temple priesthood or before
Pilate); or implacable enemies of Christ (e.g., by changing the small
"crowd" at the governor's palace into a teeming mob). Such
depictions, with their obvious "collective guilt" implications,
eliminate those parts of the gospels that show that the secrecy surrounding
Jesus' "trial" was motivated by the large following he had in
Jerusalem and that the Jewish populace, far from wishing his death, would have
opposed it had they known and, in fact, mourned his death by Roman execution
(cf. Lk 23:27).

e) Any crowd or questioning scene, therefore,
should reflect the fact that some in the crowd and among the Jewish leaders
(e.g., Nicodemus, Joseph) supported Jesus and that the rest were manipulated
by his opponents, as is made clear in the gospels (cf. Nostra Aetate,
n. 4, "Jewish authorities"; Notes IV, 30).

f) Jesus and his teachings should not be
portrayed as opposed to or by "the Pharisees" as a group (Notes
III, 24). Jesus shared important Pharisaic doctrines (Notes III, 25)
that set them apart from other Jewish groups of the time, such as the
Sadducees. The Pharisees, in fact, are not mentioned in accounts of the
passion except once in Luke, where Pharisees attempt to warn him of a plot
against him by the followers of Herod (Lk 13:31). So, too, did a respected
Pharisee, Gamaliel, speak out in a later time before the Sanhedrin to save the
lives of the apostles (Acts 5). The Pharisees, therefore, should not be
depicted as party to the proceedings against Jesus (Notes III, 24-27).

g) In sum, Judaism and Jewish society in the time
of Christ and the apostles were complex realities, embracing many different
trends, many spiritual, religious, social, and cultural values (Guidelines
III). Presentations of the passion should strive to reflect this
spiritual vitality, avoiding any implication that Jesus' death was a result of
religious antagonism between a stereotyped "Judaism" and Christian
doctrine. Many of the controversies (or "antitheses") between Jesus
and his fellow Jews, as recorded in the gospels, we know today in fact reflect
conflicts that took place long after the time of Christ between the early
Christian communities and various Jewish communities (Notes IV, 29 A).
To generalize from such specific and often later conflicts to an either/or
opposition between Jesus and Judaism is to anachronize and, more basically, to
vitiate the spirit and intent of the gospel texts (Notes III, 28; IV,
29 F).

h) In the light of the above criteria, it will
also be useful to undertake a careful examination of the staging and costuming
aspects of particular productions where this may apply. To give just one
example, it is possible to project subtly yet powerfully any or all of the
above "oppositions" by costuming: arraying Jesus' enemies in dark,
sinister costuming and makeup, with Jesus and his friends in lighter tones.
This can be effective on the stage. But it can also be disastrous if the
effect is to isolate Jesus and the apostles from "the Jews," as if
all were not part of the same people. It is important to portray Jesus and his
followers clearly as Jews among Jews, both in dress and in actions such as
prayer.

i) Similarly, the use of religious symbols
requires careful evaluation. Displays of the menorah, tablets of the law, and
other Jewish symbols should appear throughout the play and be connected with
Jesus and his friends no less than with the Temple or with those opposed to
Jesus. The presence of Roman soldiers should likewise be shown on the stage
throughout the play, to represent the oppressive and pervasive nature of the
Roman occupation.

C. Difficulties and Sensitivities in
Historical Reconstruction Based on the Four Gospel Accounts.

a) Those constructing a single narrative from the
versions of the events in the four gospels are immediately aware that the
texts differ in many details. To take just two examples, the famous phrase,
"His Blood be upon us and on our children," exists only in the
Matthean text (Mt 27:24-25), while the question of whether or not there was a
full Sanhedrin trial is given widely differing interpretations in each of the
gospel narratives. John, for example, has no Sanhedrin trial scene as such,
but only a questioning before the two chief priests at dawn (18:19). Also in
John, it is a Roman cohort, merely accompanied by Temple guards, that arrests
Jesus (Jn 18:3, 12). How is one to choose between the differing versions?

b) First, it must be understood that the gospel
authors did not intend to write "history" in our modern sense, but
rather "sacred history" (i.e., offering "the honest truth about
Jesus") (Notes IV, 29 A) in light of revelation. To attempt to
utilize the four passion narratives literally by picking one passage from one
gospel and the next from another gospel, and so forth, is to risk violating
the integrity of the texts themselves, just as, for example, it violates the
sense of Genesis 1 to reduce the magnificence of its vision of the Creation to
a scientific theorem.

c) A clear and precise hermeneutic and a guiding
artistic vision sensitive to historical fact and to the best biblical
scholarship are obviously necessary. Just as obviously, it is not sufficient
for the producers of passion dramatizations to respond to responsible
criticism simply by appealing to the notion that "it's in the
Bible." One must account for one's selections.

In the above instances, for example, one could
take from John's gospel the phrase "the Jews" and mix it with
Matthew 27:24-25, clearly implying a "blood guilt" on all Jews of
all times in violation of Nostra Aetate's dictum that "what
happened in his passion cannot be blamed on all the Jews then living without
distinction nor upon the Jews of today." Hence, if the Matthean phrase is
to be used (not here recommended), great care would have to be taken
throughout the presentation to ensure that such an interpretation does not
prevail. Likewise, the historical and biblical questions surrounding the
notion that there was a formal Sanhedrin trial argue for extreme caution and,
perhaps, even abandoning the device. As a dramatic took, it can too often lead
to misunderstanding.

d) The greatest caution is advised in all cases
where "it is a question of passages that seem to show the Jewish people
as such in an unfavorable light" (Guidelines II). A general
principle might, therefore, be suggested that if one cannot show beyond
reasonable doubt that the particular gospel element selected or paraphrased
will not be offensive or have the potential for negative influence on the
audience for whom the presentation is intended, that element cannot, in good
conscience, be used. This admittedly, will be a difficult principle to apply.
Yet, given what has been said above, it would seem to be a necessary one.

2. Historical Knowledge and Biblical
Scholarship

a) Often, what we have come to know from biblical
scholarship or historical studies will place in doubt a more literalist
reading of the biblical text. Here again, the hermeneutical principles of Nostra
Aetate, the Guidelines, and the Notes should be of
"overriding" concern. One such question suggests itself by way of
example. This is the portrait of Pontius Pilate (cf. sec. A 3, above).
It raises a very real problem of methodology in historical reconstruction of
the events of Jesus' last days.

b) The Role of Pilate. Certain of
the gospels, especially the two latest ones, Matthew and John, seem on the
surface to portray Pilate as a vacillating administrator who himself found
"no fault" with Jesus and sought, though in a weak way, to free him.
Other data from the gospels and secular sources contemporary with the events
portray Pilate as a ruthless tyrant. We know from these latter sources that
Pilate ordered crucified hundreds of Jews without proper trial under Roman
law, and that in the year 36 Pilate was recalled to Rome to give an
account. Luke, similarly, mentions "the Galileans whose blood
Pilate mingled with their sacrifices" in the Temple (Lk 13:1-4), thus
corroborating the contemporary secular accounts of the unusual cruelty of
Pilate's administration. John, as mentioned above, is at pains to show that
Jesus' arrest and trial were essentially at Roman hands. Finally, the gospels
agree that Jesus' "crime," in Roman eyes, was that of political
sedition - - crucifixion being the Roman form of punishment for such charges.
The threat to Roman rule is implicit in the charge: "King of the
Jews," nailed to the cross at Pilate's order (Mt 27:37; Mk 15:326; Lk
23:38; Jn 19:19). Matthew 27:38 and Mark 15:27 identify the
"criminals" crucified with Jesus on that day as
"insurgents." There is, then, room for more than one dramatic style
of portraying the character of Pilate while still being faithful to the
biblical record. Again, it is suggested here that the hermeneutical insight of
Nostra Aetate and the use of the best available biblical scholarship
cannot be ignored in the creative process and provide the most prudent and
secure criterion for contemporary dramatic reconstructions.

Conclusion

The Notes emphasize that because the Church
and the Jewish people are "linked together at the very level of their
identity," an accurate, sensitive, and positive appreciation of Jews and
Judaism "should not occupy an occasional or marginal place in Christian
teaching," but be considered "essential" to Christian
proclamation (I, 2; cf. I,8).

This principle is nowhere more true than in
depiction of the central events of the Paschal mystery. It is a principle that
gives renewed urgency to the evaluation of all contemporary dramatizations of
the passion and a renewed norm for undertaking that delicate and vital
task.

Bishops' Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious
Affairs

The Most Rev. J. Francis Stafford,
Archbishop of Denver, Chairman

Secretariat for Catholic-Jewish
Relations

The Most Rev. William H. Keeler, Bishop
of Harrisburg, Episcopal Moderator